Topic: Bounties with limitations pays higher rewards - page 5. (Read 1698 times)
Gone are the days bounties rewars were good. Now a days either bounty rewards are less or coins do not get right value after its launch on an exchange. I agreed to the point that limitations in bounties lead to good reward but it is not true everytime. It depends how good the project is and how much value its coin will have on an exchange. More the participants lesser is the reward and more dumping. There is hardly any project now a days which commits of pay a good reward for bounties, so bounty campaigns should be chosen carefully.
RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN A BOUNTY CAMPAIGN = HIGHER PAYOUTS
The limitations can be done in two ways:
1)Quantative — when a max number of participants is set and no one is allowed to join after that.
Example: Max 1000 entrants in a facebook campaign
2)Qualitative — when the requirements are raised up by the bounty managers.
Example: Minimum 500 followers to participate in an article/blogging campaign.
The limitations can be done in two ways:
1)Quantative — when a max number of participants is set and no one is allowed to join after that.
Example: Max 1000 entrants in a facebook campaign
2)Qualitative — when the requirements are raised up by the bounty managers.
Example: Minimum 500 followers to participate in an article/blogging campaign.
Of course, restrictions on the quantity and quality of participants in ICO bounty campaigns play a big role in obtaining remuneration. However, first of all, the perspective of the project itself matters. We can get a lot of tokens, which in the end may be useless. Therefore, in ICO bounty campaigns, everything matters. I appreciate first of all the availability of the finished product and whether this token is traded on the cryptocurrency market. You can join ICO projects with lower payouts if the project is promising for development and growth.
This restrictions and limitations rules very hard for inactive best users. In limitations campaign never possible to join all time, problem is night and day in different countries.
Campaigns that limit how many participants can partake in each category tend to offer a larger reward especially if they have higher standards for content, however, a decrease in the number of crowdsales that provide these types of campaigns has lowered the prospects of bounty hunters for now but hopefully this will soon change as the market improves
RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN A BOUNTY CAMPAIGN = HIGHER PAYOUTS
The limitations can be done in two ways:
1)Quantative — when a max number of participants is set and no one is allowed to join after that.
Example: Max 1000 entrants in a facebook campaign
2)Qualitative — when the requirements are raised up by the bounty managers.
Example: Minimum 500 followers to participate in an article/blogging campaign.
many projects that did not limit the participants because of the large number of participants would influence the promotion of their projects in this case, namely ICO and that also affected google search, which of course was very effective for the implementation of the ICO.The limitations can be done in two ways:
1)Quantative — when a max number of participants is set and no one is allowed to join after that.
Example: Max 1000 entrants in a facebook campaign
2)Qualitative — when the requirements are raised up by the bounty managers.
Example: Minimum 500 followers to participate in an article/blogging campaign.
The only problem is that if there no limitations it could lead to the destruction of the project itself. For example the team deceive the participants and paid them with less than half of what they should, the effects will backfire and the participants will talk bad stuffs about the project in the main community channel for example telegram leaving the messages to be seen by the investors resulting on backing on their plan on investing. The crowd should be control as much as possible, another is if the bounty team don't show the total amounts of participants then they could easily manipulate bounty rewards just by saying there are lots of participants but rather they just dummy because there no proofs them being real.
I agree with you partially on this, that the limitations and strict bounty rules will lead to higher rewards because the number of participants in the bounty will not be much which will make the total stakes small and rewards huge. But it can also have an adverse effect on the project because the bounty will not meet the purpose of making a large number of people aware about the project and therefore the demand might not be as much as it is supposed to be.
What some bounty hunters do not understand is that, it is not the number participants of bounty that makes it a good and worthwhile programme, but the quality of the work done by the bounty hunters. This is what should be implemented, so that projects that are being promoted will feel much of the impact of the marketing.
bounties with limitations that pays high reward? I don't think so, well it depends to the bounty if that pays high reward, but some pays low because their allocations for bounties are low.
Yes it is true that if the number of bounty participants is limited, it will greatly affect our income, it could be that with the limitation of participants, there will be more prizes for those who have registered, something like this is much expected by bounty hunters
if the campaign will put the limit of participants it will be very good, but it is important that real people will book this limit but not bots. 
Yes it is true that if the number of bounty participants is limited, it will greatly affect our income, it could be that with the limitation of participants, there will be more prizes for those who have registered, something like this is much expected by bounty hunters
For bounty hunters this limitation is a good thing as you can easily calculate how much you can possibly be paid and gets better if bounty manager goes through all submissions to reward participants according to effort and content exposure.
On second thought if the majority of these bounty hunters have shitty content it denies the project the advertisement it needed, so quantity is not always better than quality!
Bounty managers are supposed to control and check all content to decline low-quality stuff. Participants limitation makes it much more easier for managers. On second thought if the majority of these bounty hunters have shitty content it denies the project the advertisement it needed, so quantity is not always better than quality!
RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN A BOUNTY CAMPAIGN = HIGHER PAYOUTS
The limitations can be done in two ways:
1)Quantative — when a max number of participants is set and no one is allowed to join after that.
Example: Max 1000 entrants in a facebook campaign
2)Qualitative — when the requirements are raised up by the bounty managers.
Example: Minimum 500 followers to participate in an article/blogging campaign.
The limitations can be done in two ways:
1)Quantative — when a max number of participants is set and no one is allowed to join after that.
Example: Max 1000 entrants in a facebook campaign
2)Qualitative — when the requirements are raised up by the bounty managers.
Example: Minimum 500 followers to participate in an article/blogging campaign.
Some bounty managers are implementing these two, it's advantageous to the bounty hunters and to the campaign also, as a campaign can only get the best bounty hunters, and bounty hunters are assured of high stakes, it's a win-win situation for both, all the other bounty hunters should look for this when looking for a new campaign.
Well, this may be true to some extent. But, it's isn't all about it. Know it, even some bounties that have done this or even more have also failed to fulfill their own end of the deal. Why because, bounty payment lies so much on the team responsible for a project. So the team is more important for me.
The team is the most important part of a successful project. I always first check the social network teams and their experience in creating projects. 
Well, this may be true to some extent. But, it's isn't all about it. Know it, even some bounties that have done this or even more have also failed to fulfill their own end of the deal. Why because, bounty payment lies so much on the team responsible for a project. So the team is more important for me.
if you see a good team as the background for a bounty payment, maybe you are right. where many of the teams also cut the allocation for the bounty when it was finished because they had fear of the impact of the price decline that might occur due to the bounty. they just want to get success without accepting the risks that might occur. 
I can say that there are other bounties with great allocation in their bounty and there are also bounty with little allocation in their bounty with big bounty allocation to say if there is a chance to be dump its price when it is already listed on the exchanger there are bounty hunter because they already get their rewards in the bounty they immediately sell it even if the price of the exchanger is one of them knowing that the advantage of a huge allocation in the bounty with the small allocation in the bounty is their advantage is nothing it's too dumper and it's enough to quickly price the price even a lot of dumpers.
This regulation already exists, but not all bounty managers implement it and in my opinion it is quite effective in reducing spammers in several bounties.
I am also very pleased that all bounty managers will implement it, especially well-known bounty managers like Sylon, yahoo, etc.
Can you tell me which bounty manager didn't implement at least one of these two model? I think all campaign has almost the same rules, they always limit participants to join. The first one mentioned on this thread is to cut off new participants, so the reward wouldn't be less and the second one is to avoid spammers and cheaters. I am also very pleased that all bounty managers will implement it, especially well-known bounty managers like Sylon, yahoo, etc.
Well, this may be true to some extent. But, it's isn't all about it. Know it, even some bounties that have done this or even more have also failed to fulfill their own end of the deal. Why because, bounty payment lies so much on the team responsible for a project. So the team is more important for me.
For bounty hunters this limitation is a good thing as you can easily calculate how much you can possibly be paid and gets better if bounty manager goes through all submissions to reward participants according to effort and content exposure.
On second thought if the majority of these bounty hunters have shitty content it denies the project the advertisement it needed, so quantity is not always better than quality!
On second thought if the majority of these bounty hunters have shitty content it denies the project the advertisement it needed, so quantity is not always better than quality!
This regulation already exists, but not all bounty managers implement it and in my opinion it is quite effective in reducing spammers in several bounties.
I am also very pleased that all bounty managers will implement it, especially well-known bounty managers like Sylon, yahoo, etc.
I am also very pleased that all bounty managers will implement it, especially well-known bounty managers like Sylon, yahoo, etc.
absolutelly right, few participant mean more rewards will we get, because divide by few people, not divide over 1k people.
This was only working for campaigns when ICO had not become rampant then and they were meeting their target easily even with very few participants most especially from participants that have very large friends database on their social media handle but this method has now become unproductive to ICO has few participants could no longer get them their softcap again and not to talk of hardcap, so they have to extend it to as much as participants as possible, which is why many of us participating in ICO now get little token for doing a job for so long, no ico can ever go through this method again. Jump to: